My lawsuit would be based on the tort of negligence. Negligence is the failure to follow proper care or conduct established by the law to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, causing someone to suffer. There are four elements that are required to establish a case of negligence. The first is the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff. The second is the defendant's breach of that duty. The third is the plaintiff's sufferance of an injury. The final element is proof that the defendant's breach caused the injury. Under the tort of negligence, a landowner has the duty to trespassers to not intentionally hurt them. Tom breached this duty by setting up a loaded shotgun in his farmhouse. The shotgun severely wounded Gary (bodily harm), causing him to sue Tom.  

Tom could argue that he did put up several "no trespassing" signs on his farm, warning people off his property. The loaded shotgun is a reasonable course of action to take due to the problem of constant break-ins. However, it was dark outside, and Gary would not have a way to see the signs unless there was a nearby light source. It is also extremely reasonable that Gary would take shelter for the night when his car stalled, and it is very cold outside. He also did not have a cellphone and could not call for help. Although Tom did put up "no trespassing signs, he did not warn that the trespasser might get shot. Finally, the loaded shotgun might seem a reasonable course of action, but it causes harm to others. Land owners can take courses of action that will protect their land, but not in ways that will harm others, including trespassers. 

What would be a good response to a discussion like this above?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In this scenario Gary may argue that Toms no trespassing signs ... View the full answer